tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC October 15, 2010 12:00am-1:00am EDT
>> one passing thought. if you were karl rove, wouldn't you hide your identity too? i'm keith olbermann and good luck. ladies and gentlemen here is rachel maddow. thank you very much. as keith said, big conflicting and confusing but potentially good sort of news in "don't ask, don't tell" from the pentagon and from the president tonight. walter dellinger will be joining us this hour to try to make some sense of this, plus the story of how one missing letter of the alphabet became the strangest, saddest, funniest politics story of the day. also i have fallen in love with a bridge. don't worry. you will fall in love with it. too. no one needs to be jealous. it's all going to be fine. first i'd like you to take a look at a very, very, very short video clip.
are you ready? check this out? >> there are legitimate values in outsourcing, not only jobs but work. >> that was tom donahue. tom donahue is the president and ceo of the united states chamber of commerce. >> there are legitimate values in outsourcing. not only jobs, but work. >> there are legitimate values in outsourcing not only jobs but work. the president of the chamber of commerce in his capacity as the president of the chamber of commerce endorsing outsourcing, endorsing the practice of american companies shipping jobs overseas so those jobs can be done by people in foreign countries instead of by ç americans. quote, u.s. chamber of commerce president and ceo thomas donahue urged american companies on wednesday to send jobs overseas. donahue said people affected by offshoring should, quote, stop wining. the benefits of outsourcing jobs outweighs the costs.
during a trip to india he assures business leaders, quote, we are very confident that outsourcing is here to say. it would be absolutely foolish to try and stop the phenomenon. whew. outsourcing, awesome. al of you americans who lost your job because your job was outsourced to india or china, chamber of commerce has a message for you. it is, i quote, stop whining. he is now running tv ads like this all across the country. >> rise in unemployment means families are suffering. tell richard blumenthal to stop. it's hurting american families. the u.s. chamber of commerce is responsible for this advertising. >> richard blumenthal is a job killer so says the u.s. chamber of commerce. so, too, is this attack ad. over the last 16 years more than
87,000 connecticut workers saw their jobs shipped overseas. over the last 16 years more than 87,000 people in connecticut lost their jobs because a connecticut company gave their job to someone in another country. and that is something that the chamber of commerce promotes. that's according to a new report out by the nonpartisan group campaign money watch. 87,000 jobs lost in connecticut alone due to outsourcing but the pro-outsourcing guys want you to think it's richard blumenthal. he's the job killer. the chamber of commerce also running this great ad in the state of missouri. in the past two years missouri's lost thousands of good-paying jobs, so why does robin carnahan support unfair scheme to grow unions. >> did you see that? missouri lost 120,000 jobs. take a guess where those jobs went. ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.
more than 102,000 lost their jobs because they would rather fire americans and let people in other countries do that work. chamber of commerce is all for it. remember, according to them outsourcing is god. >> there are legitimate values in outsourcing not only jobs but work. >> the chamber of commerce is flooding the air waves right now with a $75 million ad almost entirely focused on blaming democrats for killing jobs even as they openly support american companies firing americans to have the work done by people in other countries instead. it is because of the chamber's out-loud well documented support of outsourcing american jobs to other countries that turned the report on them was a bombshell. their $75 million ad blitz was potentially being paid for in part by other countries, by
companies in other countries? please, send us your american jobs. and even by state-owned companies in other countries which means they may be funded by foreign companies. please, hire our citizens. in america, fire your own citizens. we like it when america is weak because of high unemployment. after that report came out the chamber of commerce immediately denied it. they claimed that not one cent of foreign money was being used to fund their campaign ads. they did not produce any evidence to back up that claim. they just said, rrr, that makes us so mad. we don't do it. trust us. do you trust them? no, neither does anybody else outside of fox news apparently. and it's been now revealed that even though the chamber of commerce says foreign money doesn't pay for their campaign adds the same chamber of bank account that pays for all of those ads has taken in at least $885,000 from more than 80 foreign companies, foreign companies like this one in mumbai, india, who calls itself
the world leader in i.t. outsourcing and also this one in singapore which says it's a leader in engineers outsourcing. also this one from bangladesh, india.ç they all pay money into the chamber of commerce account from which the chamber pays for its political ads. what do those political ads say? democrats are killing jobs. these are can companies in countries that benefit directly from american companies firing americans and instead hiring people in foreign countries to do the work. >> there are legitimate values in outsourcing, not only jobs but work. >> that's the chamber of commerce, an organization that takes foreign donations, that advocates for outsourcing and that is now among the biggest players in this year's election, putting tens of millions of dollars in entirely ads.
they high light that groups of the chamber of commerce are blanketing the ads without disclosing where they get the money from. >> they don't disclose who's behind ads. could be an oil company, could be an insurance company, could be wall street. you don't know. are you going to let special interests from wall street and washington and maybe places beyond our shores come to this state and tell us who our senator should be? >> no. >> that's not just a threat to democrat. that's a threat to our democracy. >> the money could be coming from beyond our shores. president obama making this a campaign issue. that, of course, predictably has probably caused this reaction on the right. >> i would like to make this the biggest fund-raising day in the chamber's history. i am donating $10,000 to the
chamber of commerce now. >> because they could sure use the help. that's amazing. amazing. that was fox news glenn beck today encouraging his listeners to fork over their own hard-earned cash to give it to the chamber of commerce, to promote the outsourcing of american jobs, asking regular americans who presumably get pink checks and stuff to help out the poor corporate titans because -- because, you know, why not. obama, boo!ç earlier this week we spoke with democratic pollster celinda lake. this is her issue. >> this is an issue that is a good october surprise for the october democrats and the progressives. it's a way of really raising the fundamental questions of whose side you're on. this is a great issue to unite voters o of all kinds, democratic leaning union workers
and tea partiers. all of them say that we're -- our economic system is being undermined by these policies, and these corporations are trying to pay for a congress that will keep these policies going. >> as if on cue. a new poll just comes out from "bloomberg news" revealing the extent to which democrats have really been handed a political gift here. when voters have been asked how their view of a candidate would be affected, if they learned the campaign was being paid for by anonymous business group, the percentage of people who said they would be more likely to vote for that candidate is a whopping 9%. the percentage you say would make them less likely to vote for a candidate? 47%. but, wait. there's more. another polling form, the numbers are staggering. the percentage of those who say they have a right to know who's paying for these ads?
84%. try getting 84% of americans to agree on anything. we don't even agree that cheese tastes good. we don't even agree that the earth is round. 84% says we have a right to know who's funding these ads. when asked which group has their best interest in mind, 63% said no. the percent who said they would be less likely to vote for someone with anonymously funded ads, 56%. and are you paying attention, democrats? if a candidate insists that voters have a right know who's paying for these ads, the percentage of people who say it would make them more likely to vote for that candidate? 47%. attention, democrats. this is a long slow curveball right over the heart of the plain. our first grandson. he sees you. ( laughing )
( speaking korean ) ( children squealing, laughing ) dwight eisenhower: in the goodness of time all people will come to live together in a peace guaranteed. ♪ you may say i'm a dreamer ♪ ♪ but i'm not the only one ♪ - ♪ i hope someday... - good night, baby. ♪ ...you'll join us ♪ and the world will be as one. ♪ announcer: together. we are the human network. cisco.
elections based@-9juáhqtup&ity of all americans, gay or straight. an i wonder where you stand on "don't ask, don't tell." my question is you as the president can sort of have an executive order that ends it once and for all as truman did for the integration. i wonder why don't you do that if this is a policy that you're committed to ending? >> first of all i haven't mentioned that i'm against "don't ask, don't tell." i've said very clearly including in a state of the union address that i'm against "don't ask, don't tell." we're going to end that policy. that's point number one. point number two, the difference between my position right now and harry truman's was that congress explicitly passed a law that took away the power of the executive branch to end this policy unilaterally. so this is not a situation in which with a stroke of the pen i can simply end a policy.
now, having said that, what i have been able to do is for the first time get the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, mike mullen, to say he thinks the policy should end. the secretary of defense has said he recognizes that the policy needs to change. and we, i believe, have enough votes in the senate to go ahead and remove this constraint on me as the house has already done so that i can go ahead and end it, but this is not a question of whether the policy will end. this policy will end, and it will end on my watch, but i do have an obligation to make sure that i'm following some of the rules. i can't simply ignore laws that are out there. i've got to work to make sure that they are changed. >> while that was happening today, the department of justice appealed to keep the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in place, and the military said that they would stop enforcing the policy.
confused? join the club. we will make sense of it with the help of some very, very expensive boos coming up. [ male announcer ] the u.s. government may soon require brake override technology on all new cars and trucks. at nissan, we think this is a good idea. so we did it... ...six years ago. [ wind howling ] nissan. innovation for safety. innovation for all. nissan. ready to try something new? campbell's has made changes. adding lower sodium sea salt to more soups. plus five dollars in coupons to get you started. campbell's condensed soup. pass it on. campbell's.® it's amazing what soup can do.™ a tornado hits, air life denver takes off... their night-vision goggles keeping
the rescue mission safe... and powering those goggles-- the only battery air life trusts: duracell. trusted everywhere. ♪ i like your messy hair ♪ i like the clothes you wear ♪ i like the way you sing ♪ and when you dance with me ♪ you always make me smile [ male announcer ] we believe you're at your best when you can relax and be yourself. and at thousands of newly refreshed holiday inn hotels, you always can. holiday inn. stay you. and now stay rewarded with a sweet dilemma. up to five free nights at any of our properties or double points. i'm going to be totally honest with you here. i'm not sure exactly what happened this afternoon but something big definitely happened to the policy of kicking peep out of the military for being gay. here's the big clear headline. this is the part that makes sense and this has never happened before and this is a
big deal. an injunction barring the enforcement or application of "don't ask, don't tell" effective 12, october, the department of defense will abide by its terms. military lawyers today issued legal guidance to u.s. military commanders worldwide telling them that at least for now our military is no longer enforcing "don't ask, don't tell."ç it's a big deal, right? other proceedings that are proceeding under "don't ask, don't tell" are halted. any enforcement is no longer allowed. never happened before. it's never been done, military's no longer enforcing don't ask don't tell. for now. this is a huge milestone. don't get me wrong. for the first time since the policy went into effect 17 years
ago the policy has been stopped. huge deal. but for how long? it says the military will no longer implement "don't ask, don't tell," quote, in the meantime while the government decides whether or not to appeal the court ruling that said the policy is unconstitutional. today the justice department did say it's appealing the ruling and asking for the policy to be kept in place while the appeal is heard. so the military is stopping the policy. the justice department says it wants the policy to stay in place. imagine you're a gay 18-year-old in the army right now? what do you think of today's news? yeah. the president was asked about and reiterated his position against the ban but he said it's not within his power to unilaterally to get rid of it. he said he needs the senate to do that. >> this policy ends and it will end on my watch. >> does he control the senate? no, he does not.
does he have another plan to end it if the senate doesn't vote to end it? that's what i want to know. and now that the enforcement of the policy is suspended, at least for now, can gay people go enlist in the military tomorrow if they want to? joining us now for the interview is a man more likely to have answers to these questions than anyone else we can persuade to be on this form. he is former solicitor general of the united states. mr. dellinger, it is an honor to have you on our show, sir. >> thank you. >> let me ask you the smaller questions and lead up to the bigger ones. since the enforcement of the policy is suspended, should an openly gay person now be able to enlist? >> no. i think this is a very temporary moment. what's happened is this. the district court has issued and order and the order says do not proceed with any investigations do, not proceed with any discharges of any
person in the military on the grounds of sexual orientation. and the department of justice is going to appeal that ruling. they're going to try to get her order stayed, that is, it's effectiveness postponed until appeal, but until they do the military wants to make sure they're not violating the order which is in place at the moment. >> so would you expect that the military will do a u-turn and start enforcing the policy again if this injunction that is halting it right now gets lifted? >> well, it's -- you know, i think that's unclear about how fast the military would want to process any cases or proceed with any investigations while this matter is pending. this order of the district judge will be stayed on appeal, either by the ninth circuit or by the supreme court because the court will not want it to go into effect until they've had a chance to hear, you know, full briefing and argument on the
question. >> so do you agree that -- sounds like you agree that gay people in the military are still not safe to come out and the issue of being an openly gay person and trying to join the military, even for right now, is not at all settled. >> i think that's right. now, the president said that this will end on his watch, and he's actually moved the ball pretty far down -- down the road to making that happen because the president has gotten the chairman of the joint chiefs to agree that the policy should end. he, himself, has stated unequivocally that it undermines our national security, and that's going to be a powerful argument in court. i think the government really has no choice but to appeal the we don't want a to appeal the system where a single federal judge can invalidate an act of congress and the president simply say, well, that's it, we're not going to seek to appeal that. imagine, rachel, three years down the road if someone is
challenging the health care, individual mandate or the minimum coverage requirements and there's a republican president in the white house and they find one federal district judge who holds that it's unconstitutional. i don't think the supreme court would agree with that, not close. but suppose one district court held it unconstitutional. you don't want a situation where they say, we're just not going to appeal. very different if they took the appeal and took a fairly bold step and it's something the administration, i think, ought to consider down the road sometime in december or january when the full briefing is done whether to tell the court of appeals that in the government's view it's unconstitutional. they're appealing because they believe the fine decision ought to remain with the court. but they are going to appeal. and they are going to tell the court that in our view it's unconstitutional because it's harmful to the military. >> this is one of the reasons i
wanted to talk to you specifically about this today because you've been making this case for this specific type of appeal. can you explain what precedent there is for the government doing that? for the government saying, listen, we recognize our responsibility as the didn't of justice to defend the nation's laws. we agree that this law that we are defending is unconstitutional. we are, therefore, still appealing it but saying we think it's unconstitutional too. it seems like a split-the-baby decision too. but you say it's been done before. >> it has been done before. it's been done in 1945, it's been done by president reagan's administration in certain circumstances. the what the government says is we've got an active congress. we can't say whether the supreme court will validate it. we feel like we owe it to congress to make sure that the appeal is at least taken up to the court of appeals or the supreme court. we're going to tell the court ç it's understand constitutional. we thing you should strike it
down. but we're going to allow others to come in and appear as friends of the court and argue for its constitutionality. but we're going to say what we honestly think. and think that's an option that will be open to the administration at some point in the briefing process, and, indeed, once the president has said with some support from the military that he believes that it undermines the military to have 14,000 service men and women who have been separated from service since this don't ask, don't tell went into effect in 1993, 14,000 people we've lost their services including skilled linguists and technicians and weapons experts, that doesn't advance military any more than it has substantial effect on the liberty of individual americans without advancing a governmental goal is
unconstitutional. and the president can say i've decided in my view that it's not necessary. it's harmful. therefore, i'm going to tell the court i think it's unconstitutional leaving the final decision to the court. we don't know what the court's going to hold. we don't know what the court's going to hold. so it's critically important to keep this in the realm of politic and to support candidates who support repeal because the only sure way to get this done since you can't rely on the supreme court at the end of the day, no matter what position the justice didn't takes is to make sure it gets repealed by congress. i think that's going to be the critical bailiwick we're going to face in coming months. >> i think what's so uncomfortable about it is the idea that it's a constitutional matter. that they do so on the basis of essentially agreeing with the judge's ruling that this is unsustainable under any understanding of our constitutional rights and therefore it ought to be up to a vote, it ought to be up to
whether john mccain's having a grumpy day about gay people or happy day about gay people and the court's ruling if the ç government agrees with it seems to make sense that there is jurisdictional concern that you don't want a district court judge making a policy for the whole country, but it does sort of feel like something that ought to be -- if it can't be the president, then it ought to be some sort of constitutional declaration on this. >> look, if you and i were on the supreme court -- and i think there are going to be plenty of votes on the supreme court to strike this policy down, and i think the case of striking it down as a constitutional matter is going to be stronger if the president can work his way to get the defense department fully on board. the more he's got the defense department to back him up and say this is not necessary to advance efficient military security interests, the more likely it is that it will be struck down.
so he's playing a very delicate game of trying to get the defense department on-on-board to enhance the chances that it will be struck down while he's also seeking legislative repeal. i still think at the end of the day the one place where i may differ with him is i hope at the end of the day they'll consider telling the court, look, we think it's unconstitutional. >> one last quick question for you. if this does go to the u.s. supreme court does elena kagan have to recuse herself? >> i'm aware of nothing that would indicate that she has participated in any of this litigation, but i just don't know. >> all right. walter dellinger, acting solicitor general during the clinton administration, it's been a real pleasure to hash this out with you. thank yo you so much. all right, it is a rare day in the news business, a rare, rare day when a misspelled name is the story of the day and it's a two-word indictment of politics. enlightenment through
oh there's tons. french presses, espresso tampers, filters. it can get really complicated. not nearly as complicated as shipping it, though. i mean shipping is a hassle. not with priority mail flat rate boxes from the postal service. if it fits it ships anywhere in the country for a low flat rate. that is easy. best news i've heard all day! i'm soooo amped! i mean not amped. excited. well, sort of amped. really kind of in between. have you ever thought about decaf? do you think that would help? yeah. priority mail flat rate shipping starts at just $4.90, only from the postal service. a simpler way to ship. check this out. boo-yah! shazam! h2...o! hydrolicious! magic bananas! it's the first one click faucet filter that removes 99% of lead and microbial cysts. adios contaminos! - be my wife. - miss dimitra, marry me. - marry me. - marry me. - marry me. - be my wife, please.
while in illinois today our nation's first lady michelle obama stopped in chicago to cast her vote in the state's election. illinois early voting began on monday. now, the chicago board of elections tells us that all early voting there is done electronically. because of that fact the first lady likely today saw an eyebrow-raising choice on her electronic ballot when she cast and reviewed her vote for governor.
what we believe she saw there was among the choices, r. whitey, the initial "r" starting for rich. rich whitey. rich whitey is on the ballot in illinois, everybody, all right, and it is a mistake. there is a rich whitey on the ballot, but he is there where green party gubernatorial candidate rich whitney is supposed to be. not rich whitey but rather rich whitney. turns out not all "n"s in the middle of words are created equal. he's listed on the ballot as rich witty on 23 wards which are african-american communities. he said, i don't want to be identified as "whitey." if this is happening in primarily african-american wards, that's an even bigger concern.ç i don't know if this is machine politics at play or why this happened. the "chicago sun-times" reported
that the misspelling of mr. whitney's name is after they have made their choice. so chicagoans in those 23 wards do not freak out when you chosen to vote for green party candidate rich whitney. it is a typo, not a comic book-style dramatic unveiling. it was also a typo they're trying to fix. the spokesman for the chicago board of elections jim allen telling the "sun-times" today that they do not vote electronically and his name is spelled right on the paper ballot. when we reached him today he said the board of elections is in the process of testing a potential solution and the problem of him being listed as mr. whitey on the electronic vote machine should hopefully be fixed by next saturday by which time early voting on electronic
machines will have already been under way for nearly a week. mr. whitney, i don't have anything to do with this having gone horribly wrong but i am still very, very, very, very sorry.plicated with a series of stepped altitude changes. [ air traffic controller ] okay, 245, proceed to your next cleared altitude. [ sighs ] [ male announcer ] today, truecourse flight management systems from ge allow for fuel savings, lower emissions and less noise... ♪ ...making the old way of doing things... [ air traffic controller ] 245, you are cleared to land. [ male announcer ] ...seem less than graceful. ♪ boss: and now i'll turn it over gecko: ah, thank you, sir. . as we all know, geico has been saving people money on rv, camper and trailer insurance...
...as well as motorcycle insurance... gecko: oh...sorry, technical difficulties. boss: uh...what about this? gecko: what's this one do? gecko: um...maybe that one. ♪ dance music boss: ok, let's keep rolling. we're on motorcycle insurance. vo: take fifteen minutes to see how much you can save on motorcycle, rv, and camper insurance. so i got my nephew to build a website. i hired someone to make my website... five months ago. we are building a website by ourselves. announcer: there's an easier way. create your own small-business site with intuit websites. just choose a style that fits your business and customize, publish and get found in three easy steps. sweet. all from just $4.99 a month, get a 30-day free trial at intuit.com.
today and yesterday and just the last two days, 14 nato troops have been killed in afghanistan, six killed yesterday, eight more killed ç today in five separate attacks. while violence is ramping up, efforts to end the war are taking some really dramatic turns. in addition to fighting the taliban on the increasingly deadly battlefields of afghanistan, u.s.-led forces there are also now, quote, permitting the movement of senior taliban leaders to attend initial peace talks in kabul. think about that for a second. mine everybody has admitted far while that the war will end in afghanistan the way most wars end, through talking, through negotiation. general petraeus late last month
started prepping the u.s. public for that when he started you lining the conditions. he said, quote, this is how you end these kinds of insurgencies. it's understandable enough in theory. these things end by talking. but in practice, it is harder to fathom. u.s. forces knowing who senior taliban leaders are, knowing where they are, and knowingly letting them pass safely on their way to kabul and then presumably back home again to keep fighting u.s. troops. joining us now, brian katulis, senior fellow for american progress. he specializes in the middle east and south asia. brian, thank you for being here. we appreciate your time. >> hi, rachel. >> it is tough leading taliban leaders pass safely when so many u.s. troops are being killed by the taliban. the only reason it makes sense is if these negotiations are going to end the war. do you really think it's likely they are?
>> i don't think anyone really knows the answer to that question. i would draw a parallel to iraq. a big part of it is we reached out. today we actually have an iraqi government that actually has political forces that has american blood on their hands. that's a part of the nature of these conflicts, you know. >> in terms of the parallel with iraq, one of the things that happened in 2006 is the insurgent groups on their own decided they wanted to be a part of negotiating some sort of solution, some sort of solutionç that excluded groups like say al qaeda in iraq. once those insurgent groups decided that on their own, u.s. forces decided to get in and try to facilitate it. is that same sort of thing happening where this is happening organically among afghans and that we are just trying to help or are we making this happen? >> i think it may be happening organically.
the key factor here, the difference, is pakistan and the fact that in pakistan a lot of these militant groups have a safe haven and we know this. u.s. operations have gone across the border. there have been multiple drone strikes there and they have supported elements of the insurgency. so they're the key wild card that make it a little bit more complicated than iraq and we have to be careful about these parallels. this is very complicated. i would categorize these talks and everything that secretary gates is talking about in brussels right now as very important but also easier said than done. easy to execute but hard to get right. >> are we count tong afghan government to be able to come to an enforceable deal, or will we be involved in trying to make it happen and will be involved in trying to make it stick? >> i think the u.s. has been involved in multiple efforts for several years to bring some
elements of the taliban back in. think the only way it really works is if this is an afghan-led process. if karzai and others in the afghan government can actually facilitate a power-sharing deal. if it's seen to be something that we execute ourselves, it may not sustain itself, and at the end of the day, all of the parties have got to agree to it. i think the news reports in "the wall street journal" and "the new york times" you're talking about allude to a nato official says the u.s. has facilitated some travel. a lot of this has happened before, too, in places like saudi arabia. there have been talks for years, and i think we need to wait to see if there's more there in terms of whether there's a sustainable agreement here. >> right. and one of the things i know that you have worked on and studied is the connection between the war effort and americans' feelings about the war. >> right. >> if this is the way the war ends, either in the short term, the medium (erm, or, god forbid, the long term, tell us how it plays out here.
we installed ten years later that government makes a deal with the taliban. how does that play out here among the american public? >> well, thing the key factor, number one, is done the american public perceive we're safer as a result of all these actions? we're in afghanistan because of the 9/11 attacks, and i think if through ice a sense that we actually degraded al qaeda and others, i think if we passed the -- i think we have passed the test when you hear 50 to 100 al qaeda representatives perhaps in afghanistan -- then beyond that, i think there's this issue of most americans today, sadly, i think, are disconnected from these wars. know you were out in afghanistan earlier this summer. the burden of these wars are actually being borne mostly by the troops, other people serving in the u.s. government and their families. that's a very narrow slice of the american public and because we're financing this war and all of the wars on borrowed money,
most americans don't feel the financial impact of this. so the sad thing is when you look at the midterm elections and the politics of national security the vast majority of americans aren't affected by what's going on right now and this disconnection, think, is one of the most dangers things. so i, you know, think there'll be less attention to how this ends if it ends peacefully. >> which is bad in the sense of our moral obligation to be connected to this fighting and dieing in our name. >> absolutely. >> and it may be good in the sense we're actually trying to wind down the war without it being politicized and extended for fame and glory. brian katulis. thank you very much for joining us. appreciate it. >> thanks, rachel. straight ahead. look what americans can do. art plus infrastructure plus futility equals a very happy ending to the show tonight. please stay with us for that. [ female announcer ] we don't just want to say natural instincts looks healthy.
we want to prove it. take the natural instincts challenge. get healthier color in 10 minutes. guaranteed. or, we'll buy you 2 boxes of your old color. for details, go to naturalinstincts.com. [ female announcer ] start your morning... hey. what are you doing up? i thought i'd take a drive before work. want to come? [ female announcer ] or make his day. yeah. [ female announcer ] maxwell house gives you a rich, full-flavored cup of coffee, so you can be good to the last drop.
[ female announcer ] maxwell house gives you a rich, full-flavored cup of coffee, on your next business trip, pack your marriott rewards visa card. get triple points every time you use your card at marriott. apply now and earn 22,500 bonus points when you use your card and enjoy a free night stay. so, before you know it, work time becomes well-deserved downtime. apply now at marriott.com/freenightstay. you've got staying power.
trillion dollars in medicare right at a point where senior citizens need to have that medicare advantage. that's where their choices are. it also costs us half a trillion dollars in new taxes. the solutions to the health care insurance cost problem are simple, and they reside within the free market. we need to get the government out so we can go across state lines to choose insurance companies. we need to get the government ç out of the process so that we can take off those mandated coverages. we need to get the government out so we can have tort reform and so we can expand the pools. the solutions to the health care cost of insurance are free market. >> senator reid? >> the facts are wrong. i read the medicare under the
medical people here today, the fact that a letter from secretary sebelius. they're going to pay less rather than more. there will be more medicare-advantaged people on the roll now. my opponent doesn't like any insurance companies to have to do anything. she's against mammogram, colonoscopies, and as we heard lately insurance covering kids that have autism. that's really extreme. >> is there anything at all that you think the insurance companies should be mandated to cover? anything? >> anything at all? >> yes. >> i think that what we -- what we have here is a choice between the free market and americanism. americanism is about choices and we need to allow people to have those choices. the free market will weed out those companies that don't offer as many choices and don't have a cost-effective system. let the people decide where they
want to buy their insurance. you don't have to force them to buy anything. and you don't have to force anyone to offer a product that no one wants. >> okay. so no insurance mandates. >> no insurance mandates, right, sharron angle? the insurance company will take care of it just like we were if we would just leave them alone. here is what happened on unemployment. >> do you believe that getting jobs for nevadans is not your job? >> i believe that my job is to create the policies that will encourage the private sector to do what they do best, and that is to create jobs. >> yesterday or the day before we had a company from china come here to create 1,000 jobs and that i have leased the warehouse to make led lighting, and make windmills, and that is a resultç of $2 billion worth of work in nevada with renewable jobs, and
tax policies incentives encourage them to do that. and we have a $3 billion project going on there today. and harrah's, we saved 31,000 jobs there alone. my opponent is against those, and she wouldn't do that. my job is to create jobs. what she is talking about is extreme. >> extreme -- there seems to be a theme here. much more on that debate coming up with the "last word with lawrence o'donnell" and his guest is the person missing from the podium is the scott ashjian who is running against both of those candidates. we will be right back. [ fema] olay professional pro-x.
sold out online in 17 minutes. beauty editors are raving. the clinical results are astounding. olay professional pro-x. read all about it at olayprofessional.com. i graduated from west point, then i did a tour of duty in iraq. when i was transitioning from active duty, i went to a military officer hiring conference. it was kind of like speed dating. there were 12 companies that i was pre-matched with, but walmart turned out to be the best for me. sam walton was in the military, and he understood the importance of developing your people. it's an honor to be in a position of leadership at walmart. i'm captain tracey lloyd, and i work at walmart. ♪ ♪ we need to finish those projections ♪ ♪ then output the final presentations ♪ ♪ sally, i'm gonna need 40 copies, obviously collated ♪ what's going on? when we're crunched for time, brad combines office celebrations with official business. it's about efficiency. [ courier ] we can help.
when you ship with fedex, you can work right up until the last minute. it gives you more time to get stuff done. that's a great idea. ♪ i need to speak with you privately ♪ ♪ i found your resume on the printer ♪ everyone! ♪ i found your resume on the printer ♪ [ male announcer ] we understand.® you need a partner who gives you more time. fedex. it'll cost a fortune to insure you. nationwide insurance, we need a freeze-frame here. let's give parents a break, right ? let the discounts they've earned be passed down to their teens. save mom and dad up to 25% versus the competition.
for your appreciation i hereby submit the freaking awesomeness of the hoover dam. it is a landmark with the dedication that was said to be ç the eighth wonder of the world. it harnessed the colorado river and served a as concrete metaphor for the think big, and aim high get it done spirit of america. if you have not visited the hoover dam or driven across it, chances are that you want to and you should, really should, because it is only 30 miles from vegas, and when you get there, you will see that the hover dam now has a buddy. the hoover dam bypass bridge which is another edifice of awesomeness which is the largest concrete bridge in the western hemisphere and spanning larger
and wider than hoover dam across the same black canyon and it is as spectacular as ginormous, and they say that the people on the hoover dam cannot help but take pictures of the bridge itself, and the hoover dam is the best place to view the bridge, and the viewing platform they built off of it is the best vantage point to take in the amazing hoover dam. used to be that you had to be in a helicopter to get a view of the dam like that. the bridge is called the mike o'callahan and pat tillman bridge. it is named after a former nevada politician, and pat tillman who gave up his career with the arizona cardinals to serve in the military and lost his life by friendly fire. and now, there was a thought to get another way for cars to get across that stretch. the project was acute after 9/11
when the trucks were prevented from coming across the dam in that the dam was a terrorist project, and the trucks were diverted and had to drive 30 miles around loflin, nevada. crane by crane, and column by column and across the mighty colorado and built by americans in america, and non- outsourceable jobs that kept those workers employed for nine years, because a choice was made.ç people had to decide to build the bridge. and then commit the resources and the time to do it. stuff like this exist because people chose to build it. we found the money to pay for it. we developed the technology to get it done. but today, in this country right now, on the prevailing wisdom is that we should not try anymore. last week new jersey governor chris christie put the kibosh on a tunnel project that would have connected his state to new york city and provided some much
needed relief for the one single tunnel that for 100 years has handled all of the train traffic from the mainland united states west of the hudson river into manhattan and another engineering marvel with the wealth of concentration of people who exist on an island 11 miles long and connected to the rest of the united states by bridges and tunnels and governor christy of new jersey has decided that his state can no longer afford the third of the cost it would be responsible for, no matter the upside, and no matter the economic activity it would facilitate and no matter the construction jobs to build the tunnel, those can go away, and the money spent on constructing the tunnel can be thrown away, forget it, we don't want to compete like this anymore. now the tunnel may happen, and with private financing and the government may pick up chris christie's share of the cost, but the vision thing, the american can-do spirit of aiming big, and getting stuff done, eh,
it has been replaced we cannot afford it, and not responsible with it. let china do it. we can't be bothered. the hoover bypass dam they built nine years ago and imagine proposing it today, and imagine making the case today to invest in our future and imagine the reaction on the political right. you have to decide that you want to build stuff. you have to find a way to pay for it and to develop the technology to make it happen. it does not happen on its own. >> i believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal before this decade is out of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. if we are to go halfway or ç reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, in my judgment, it is better not to go at all. >> we are either still that country or not